DiscussMormonism.com

I finally could take no more:

The Anthropomorphic God, Or Cogdis Revisited, Who here really suffers from CogDis? is the name of the thread.

It's a debate between myself and someone named Beowulf.

Here's my relevant post:

QUOTE

On another thread, the following exchange took place. It was closed before I had a chance to respond. This person accused me of cogdis, for having the gall to state what I really believe...

Here follows an explanation (of sorts)...
Me: I was once discussing religion at my workplace because I had just purchased a modern English Bible during lunch hour, and people gathered round to look at it. Asked about Mormonism, I said that LDS were some of the most primitive religionists of all (or as someone on this thread so quaintly put it, "barbaric"), because we believe in an anthropomorphic God. I explained that the Israelites believed it too, and only later became more sophisticated, turning Him into an invisible God (like the God that Johnny loves so much).

For proof, I turned to the end of Deuteronomy (remember, I had never read this particular edition of the Bible before), which states in 34:10 There has never yet risen in Israel a prophet like Moses, whom the Lord knew FACE TO FACE.

The footnote here ran as follows: "While on the surface the meaning is that Moses was able to see the Invisible Deity, it is likely that this is not the intent; the intent rather is to speak of the unique stature of Moses (so far, so conventional, but read on to the end of the footnote!). The thought that a Moses could see the Deity IS A RELIC OF EARLY TIMES, before the view matured that the Deity is invisible."

This elicited oohs and ahhs from the gallery.

Ozemc responded:
And, of course, Deuteronomy was written (supposedly) by .... Moses. So, we have a scripture saying this wonderful man knew the Lord face to face, because he was such a great prophet, written by himself. Sounds rather self-aggrandizing to me.

Me: Since this part of Deuteronomy was written IN PRAISE OF Moses after his departure from the scene, it plainly was not written by himself. You need to pay more careful attention...




Way off, sorry. Many scholars agree that he wrote it himself.

Please see the following:

http://www.allabouttruth.org/when-was-t ... en-faq.htm

http://bibleresources.Bible.com/afacts.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuteronomy

This last does discuss the idea that maybe some of the book was written by other authors, but more to expand on his ideas rather than be a praise of him. Some seem to indicate that maybe Joshua wrote it, and then included information about how great a prophet Moses was. One thing does seem to be clear though: the ideas put forth in this book were from Moses, and, the odds are, he wrote most of the book himself.


QUOTE

Me again:
by the way, ozemc, just so you know where I am coming from, I have no difficulty accepting a 5-billion-year-old Earth and evolution for the life that appeared there. I see no conflict between that, and a God who is a Man who is my literal Father in Heaven.
Ozemc ripostes:
There's a phrase for that. It's called cognitive dissonance.
Me: This is quite a jab... But it merely shows that Ozemc does not understand Mormons.



On the contrary, I believe that I have really begun to understand Mormons quite well.

You believe in a fairy tale put forth by some guy in the 1800's who had a history of being a confidence man and a fraud. But yet, when it's pointed out to you that you sound like a cult, say, like Jim Jones, or David Koresh, you say you're not, even though you send your young people on "missions" and keep them from their families, do not allow them any music, video, newspapers, or other outside information other than church-approved stuff, just like they did. That's not a mission, it's brainwashing.

You believe this same man "translated" papyrus he got into the Book Of Abraham, when the actual documents have been shown to have nothing to do with Abraham.

You believe this same guy when he said he was "translating" the Kinderhook plates, which were setup to be a fraud. If he was God's prophet, why didn't he know?

You believed this man when he said there must be plural marriages because he got caught in bed with a young girl by his wife. Then, when it becomes too embarassing, the "church" receives a new "revelation" that polygamy is not OK.

You believe this man when he says you shouldn't use hot drinks (which has come to mean caffeine), alcohol, or tobacco, even though recent developments have indicated that moderate amounts of caffeine and alcohol can be good for you. Plus, the fact the he himself used all three kinda make it a bit hypocritical.

You believed many of the early church "prophets" when they used their own racist prejudices to deny blacks the priesthood. Again, when it becomes too at odds with the government, a new "revelation" changes it. So, God changed His mind, again?

You believe that the God who created this wonderful universe, all billions and billions of light-years of it, was a man, just like me.

A God, who, if He was in fact a man, had to have evolved, which you say you believe in, and which, by the vary nature of whatever God is, could not have occured. A god that was once mortal is no god. Hence the cognitive dissonance.

You believe that you can, too, become a god, if you follow all the ordinances of the church, and have your own universe which you and your sealed wife can populate.

You believe you can "save" dead people, by proxy baptism, many even going so far as to proxy baptize people of other religions, thereby ensuring you are viewed as elitist, arrogant, and condescending.

You believe if you are "worthy" enough, you can go to heaven, which is not in the KJV of the Bible, which you claim to view as Holy Scripture.

And you wonder why I question?

QUOTE

I might point out that Ozemc is the one suffering from cognitive dissonance (at least when it comes to divining what Mormons really believe).

He can't hold two ideas in his head at once:

1) Beowulf is a Mormon
2) Mormons believe in young earth creationism and a universal flood.

But, Beowulf doesn't accept #2. Dissonance alert!!!

He can only conclude (to reconcile his dissonance) that:

A) Beowulf isn't a real Mormon
Beowulf is lying
C) Beowulf is very confused (i.e. cognitive dissonance)

He is incapable of considering another possible answer:

D) All Mormons are not YEC or universal floodists; the Church has no
official position thereon.


However, the church does hold the position that Adam and Eve were real, and holds that the KJV of the Bible is scripture. Your own temple ceremonies include the story of creation. The story of creation implies a young earth and no evolution. Is it true, or not?

QUOTE

Accepting D also challenges some of his other cognitions, like "Mormonism is
inimical to science."


It is. See above about the new thoughts on caffeine and alcohol.

QUOTE

Thus, he has to put the problem back on Beowulf, instead of on his faulty thinking.
One would think that confronted with an active Mormon who isn't YEC or universal
floodist, he would simply realize that being a Mormon doesn't require YEC
and universal floodism. But, that would be too uncomfortable.

Curse you, cognitive dissonance! :-)

Now, with that settled , let me explain WHY this clashing belief is possible, at least for me, and why it is NOT cognitive dissonance for me.

To take Noah's Flood as an example: I do not believe in a Universal Flood, since the physical evidence around the world will simply not allow it. Does this mean (a la ozemc) that I MUST discard the story entirely? No it does not. I accept that there really WAS a person named Noah, that he built a boat, and that the whole world AS HE KNEW IT went under water. The story is real enough on its own. But there is another aspect to the story. This is that the water in Noah's Flood is not ordinary water. It is the waters of Chaos that God beat back on the first day of Creation. The whole episode, therefore, has a cosmological significance that supersedes the real event. (Which I also accept DID happen, in a localized way.) Understanding this is not too difficult for Mormons, yet is extremely difficult for secularists who do not know how to read a story in any other way but black and white (i.e.: like fundamentalists ).


Of course, that is not the way it is in the Bible, which your church claims to be Holy Scripture.

for what it's worth, I don't believe in a universal flood, either.

QUOTE

This is how I read all ancient tales, whether in the Bible or in some other culture. The truth of the story may actually be in several layers (and just because it is labeled myth does not mean that it is fiction). People intuitively know how to interpret these tales, whether they be Mormons, Maoris, Hopis, or Japanese. When people start trying to rationalize and explain away these tales, theology is born, and the original spirit of the tale is lost.

The genius of Mormonism has been the ability to return to the original intent of these tales, and see them for what they are, without having to compromise science and observations of the natural world.

Comments welcome.

Beowulf



So, you don't believe in the Bible? Your church hierarchy does.

Be careful, you might not make it to the Celestial Kingdom.

ozmec,

One thing that you need to understand is that the FAIR/MAD board is not a discussion board. It is a propaganda device. Once you understand that, you won't care to invest your time on it.

Jersey Girl

Jersey Girl wrote:ozmec,

One thing that you need to understand is that the FAIR/MAD board is not a discussion board. It is a propaganda device. Once you understand that, you won't care to invest your time on it.

Jersey Girl

Well, there's definitely a lot of closed minds over there.

Like my friends and I discuss, I know in my heart that I can honestly say I don't know what the truth is. But, I'm pretty sure I know what it's NOT. The stuff discussed over there "sure ain't the truth".

Oh well. maybe I'll lurk for a while, and through in my .02 every now and then.

Way off, sorry. Many scholars agree that he wrote it himself.

Beowulf was right. No one teaching Hebrew Bible in a university setting would ever suggest that Moses wrote Deuteronomy, no matter what your Internet sources may claim.

I’m afraid that it is you who are “way off” on this one.

You believe in a fairy tale put forth by some guy in the 1800's who had a history of being a confidence man and a fraud. But yet, when it's pointed out to you that you sound like a cult, say, like Jim Jones, or David Koresh

The rules of the board are not that difficult to grasp. People on the board do not want their Church compared to the cults of Jim Jones, or David Koresh.

Many informed critics, including Dan Vogel, are able to raise important arguments without resulting to such tactics. If you are unable to do so, it’s probably best to stay away.

Then again, since you don’t seem to have a very strong grasp of these issues your discussing, you could always continue with this ploy in an effort to receive a banning so that you could then turn around and present yourself as a martyr.

Way off, sorry. Many scholars agree that he wrote it himself.

Beowulf was right. No one teaching Hebrew Bible in a university setting would ever suggest that Moses wrote Deuteronomy, no matter what your Internet sources may claim.

I’m afraid that it is you who are “way off” on this one.

You believe in a fairy tale put forth by some guy in the 1800's who had a history of being a confidence man and a fraud. But yet, when it's pointed out to you that you sound like a cult, say, like Jim Jones, or David Koresh

The rules of the board are not that difficult to grasp. People on the board do not want their Church compared to the cults of Jim Jones, or David Koresh.

Many informed critics, including Dan Vogel, are able to raise important arguments without resulting to such tactics. If you are unable to do so, it’s probably best to stay away.

Then again, since you don’t seem to have a very strong grasp of these issues your discussing, you could always continue with this ploy in an effort to receive a banning so that you could then turn around and present yourself as a martyr.

Did you even read the sources?

for what it's worth, I really don't believe a lot of the Bible anyway. Most of it is allegorical and I think a lot of the history is embellished.

You know, if you don't want your cult to be compared to other cults, then it shouldn't act like one.

"Walks like a duck, ...."

I could care less that they don't want it compared to those I mentioned, it is what it is. If speaking the truth offends, so be it. I present myself as myself.

Can you tell me how I don't have a grasp of the issues? Is there anything I wrote about the church that's not true?

Did you even read the sources?

Let’s start with the link to wikipedia, which actually refutes your claims regarding Mosaic authorship:

"Rather than originate with zealous religious leaders (the prophets), it may have been written by the king and high priest, both of whom were political leaders. By attributing the book to Moses, it would have the same authority as the other books, and its precepts would be similarly observed and respected."

for what it's worth, I really don't believe a lot of the Bible anyway. Most of it is allegorical and I think a lot of the history is embellished.

Thanks for clarifying your position. Since you “really don’t believe a lot of the Bible anyway,” it shouldn’t bother you to actually do a bit of reading on the subject before incorrectly stating that many scholars agree with your opinion that Moses wrote Deuteronomy.

Given your take, discovering the truth won’t bother you in the least, and will, in fact, actually save you from a bit of embarrassment.

You know, if you don't want your cult to be compared to other cults, then it shouldn't act like one. "Walks like a duck, ...."

I’m not at all hurt by your ignorance. I kind of get a kick out of it.

Feel free to maintain an opinion that Latter-day Saints are in every way equivalent to the followers of Jim Jones, David Koresh, or even Adolf Hitler. Feel free to continually embarrass yourself by expressing your opinion on this forum.

But they’ve asked you not to result to such tactics on the MAAD board and you continue to bring nothing whatsoever to the discussion than spouting off your silly analogy.

The rule isn’t that difficult to keep and talented critics such as the Dude, Tarski, Don Bradley, and Dan Vogel are, from my perspective, effective without it.

Clearly you cannot keep up. Hence, it really looks like you’re trying desperately to get banned.

I could care less that they don't want it compared to those I mentioned, it is what it is. If speaking the truth offends, so be it. I present myself as myself.

Again, if that’s the best you can do at arguing against LDS history and theology than you really should avoid the MAAD board and stick with RFM where such tactics are encouraged.

Let’s start with the link to wikipedia, which actually refutes your claims regarding Mosaic authorship:

"Rather than originate with zealous religious leaders (the prophets), it may have been written by the king and high priest, both of whom were political leaders. By attributing the book to Moses, it would have the same authority as the other books, and its precepts would be similarly observed and respected."

for what it's worth, I really don't believe a lot of the Bible anyway. Most of it is allegorical and I think a lot of the history is embellished.

Thanks for clarifying your position. Since you “really don’t believe a lot of the Bible anyway,” it shouldn’t bother you to actually do a bit of reading on the subject before incorrectly stating that many scholars agree with your opinion that Moses wrote Deuteronomy.

Given your take, discovering the truth won’t bother you in the least, and will, in fact, actually save you from a bit of embarrassment.

Did I say "all"? No, I didn't.

There are many scholars who do think that Moses wrote a good bit of the book. Sorry, that is the truth.

Of course, there are many that think otherwise. Yes, I did include that link to specifically indicate that it was not "all" scholars. Do try to keep up.

You know, if you don't want your cult to be compared to other cults, then it shouldn't act like one. "Walks like a duck, ...."

I’m not at all hurt by your ignorance. I kind of get a kick out of it.

Feel free to maintain an opinion that Latter-day Saints are in every way equivalent to the followers of Jim Jones, David Koresh, or even Adolf Hitler. Feel free to continually embarrass yourself by expressing your opinion on this forum.

But they’ve asked you not to result to such tactics on the MAAD board and you continue to bring nothing whatsoever to the discussion than spouting off your silly analogy.

The rule isn’t that difficult to keep and talented critics such as the Dude, Tarski, Don Bradley, and Dan Vogel are, from my perspective, effective without it.

Clearly you cannot keep up. Hence, it really looks like you’re trying desperately to get banned.

No, again, try to at least be intellectual about it. The truth is the truth.

Show me how the church is different than any other cult. Show me how missions are not just great big brainwashing exercises.

Show me where the overlords of the church (or even the appropriately named MAD board) tolerate dissent.

Show me the plates.

I could care less that they don't want it compared to those I mentioned, it is what it is. If speaking the truth offends, so be it. I present myself as myself.

Again, if that’s the best you can do at arguing against LDS history and theology than you really should avoid the MAAD board and stick with RFM where such tactics are encouraged.

LDS history and theology argues against itself.

While the history has been whitewashed by the leadership, the theology is way out of the mainstream.

Hey, believe what you want, but it is a cult.

Did I say "all"? No, I didn't. There are many scholars who do think that Moses wrote a good bit of the book. Sorry, that is the truth.

No, I'm afraid your point is a far cry from the truth. When all is said and done, you won’t find “many scholars who… think that Moses wrote a good bit of [Deuteronomy].” In fact, I can’t think of a single Bible scholar who would make this ridiculous assertion.

In reality, the view provided by S. Dean McBride, Jr. in the introductory section to Deuteronomy featured in the NRSV Study Bible represents the consensus:

“While some of the antecedent traditions of Deuteronomy may well be older, the major stages in compositional history of the book can with some confidence be dated in the two centuries between the fall of Samaria (721 BCE) and the beginning of the Judean restoration (ca 535 BCE) after the exile to Babylonian” (pg. 267-268).

Of course, there are many that think otherwise. Yes, I did include that link to specifically indicate that it was not "all" scholars. Do try to keep up.

Then it appears I owe you an apology. I really had no idea that you had actually provided that link because it refutes your claim.

No, again, try to at least be intellectual about it. The truth is the truth.Show me how the church is different than any other cult.

I can’t. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is just like all other cults that

1. Represent a break from mainstream religious traditions
2. Are led by a charismatic religious leader
3. Require high levels of commitment from their followers
4. Introduce new revelation
5. Are founded by a religious leader who gives his life as a martyr.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is just like every other cult in these areas, including 1st century Christianity.

Show me where the overlords of the church (or even the appropriately named MAD board) tolerate dissent.

I’ve already provided several names of dissenters whose participation on MAAD is not only tolerated, but at least from my perspective, appreciated. Of course, they have stronger arguments than your's.

Show me how the church is different than any other cult… Show me the plates.

So the logic employed with this statement suggests that if I could "show you" the golden plates then Mormonism would not qualify as a cult?

What an odd view!

LDS history and theology argues against itself.

So this is suppose to explain why you have no other argument to raise over on the MAAD board than the claim that Mormonism is a cult?!

Surely with a history and theology that argues against itself, you could do better.

While the history has been whitewashed by the leadership,

Examples please.

the theology is way out of the mainstream.

Thank God!

Hey, believe what you want, but it is a cult.

Yes, you’ve said that before. And you’ve certainly proven your point.

Enuma Elish wrote:

Did I say "all"? No, I didn't. There are many scholars who do think that Moses wrote a good bit of the book. Sorry, that is the truth.

No, I'm afraid your point is a far cry from the truth. When all is said and done, you won’t find “many scholars who… think that Moses wrote a good bit of [Deuteronomy].” In fact, I can’t think of a single Bible scholar who would make this ridiculous assertion.

In reality, the view provided by S. Dean McBride, Jr. in the introductory section to Deuteronomy featured in the NRSV Study Bible represents the consensus:

“While some of the antecedent traditions of Deuteronomy may well be older, the major stages in compositional history of the book can with some confidence be dated in the two centuries between the fall of Samaria (721 BCE) and the beginning of the Judean restoration (ca 535 BCE) after the exile to Babylonian” (pg. 267-268).

Of course, there are many that think otherwise. Yes, I did include that link to specifically indicate that it was not "all" scholars. Do try to keep up.

Then it appears I owe you an apology. I really had no idea that you had actually provided that link because it refutes your claim.

You know, we could go back and forth on this all day. There is no consensus.

Now that you've provided quotes, let me provide some too.

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/moses.html

What are the arguments for Mosaic authorship? First, there are numerous passages in Exodus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy that point to Moses as author. For instance, Exodus 34:27 says, "Then the LORD said to Moses, 'Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.'" In fact, there are references throughout the Old Testament (Joshua, 1 & 2 Kings, Ezra, Nehemiah, Daniel, and Malachi) that claim that Moses wrote the Pentateuch.

New Testament writers assumed that Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible as well. In Matthew 19:8 Jesus refers to laws regarding marriage in Deuteronomy and credits Moses with writing them. In John 7:19 Jesus says, "If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me." In Romans 10:5 Paul states that Moses wrote the law. It would be hard not to attribute either deception or error to Christ and the apostles if Moses did not write the Pentateuch.

There are many other internal evidences that point to Mosaic authorship. The writer of Exodus gives eyewitness details of the event that only a participant would know about. The author of Genesis and Exodus also portrays remarkable knowledge of Egyptian names and places. This knowledge is evident even in the style of writing used. One scholar has noted that the writer used "a large number of idioms and terms of speech, which are characteristically Egyptian in origin, even though translated into Hebrew."{10}

Having received training in the most advanced literate culture of the day as well as having access to the Jewish oral tradition make Moses a remarkably able and likely candidate for God to use in documenting the founding of the Jewish nation.

Here's another one: http://www.myjewishlearning.com/texts/b ... rah930.htm

But how and when did this happen? The Talmud asks a very basic question about Moses' role, starting with a quote from Deuteronomy:

"'So Moses, God's servant, died there' (Deuteronomy 34:5). But is it possible that Moses wrote 'So Moses died' while he was still alive?!' Rather, Moses wrote up to this point, and from here on, Joshua the son of Nun wrote—these are the words of R. Judah…[R. Shimon raises an alternative:] Up to this point, God spoke and Moses repeated and wrote; after this point, God spoke and Moses wrote in tears" (Menachot 30a).

Based on this text, Moses wrote all of the Torah, with the exception, perhaps, of the final eight verses.

No, again, try to at least be intellectual about it. The truth is the truth.Show me how the church is different than any other cult.

I can’t. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is just like all other cults that

1. Represent a break from mainstream religious traditions
2. Are led by a charismatic religious leader
3. Require high levels of commitment from their followers
4. Introduce new revelation
5. Are founded by a religious leader who gives his life as a martyr.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is just like every other cult in these areas, including 1st century Christianity.

Well, to use your format, I would probably use some different words to describe it:

1. Throws mainstream tradition out the window for completely new, radical views such as God was once a man, eternal marriages, and 3 levels of heaven. So far out of the "main stream" as to be out of the river.
2. Led by one who calls himself a "prophet" of God, who receives new and continuing revelation, that can change past revelations (God changed his mind?). Billy Graham is a "charismatic religious leader", but I don't think he would say he receives new revelations from God that contrast with what he said before.
3. Requires a complete life change, including 2 year brainwashing "missions" in which the converts cannot read, see, or listen to anything other than offical doctrine. Requires telling church leadership about finances, family crises, and sexual relationships.
4. Details new "revelations" from God in which He has changed His mind about previous "revelations", such as polygamy, and blacks being denied the priesthood.
5. Founded by a known con man who died as a result of trying to stifle 1st amendment freedoms by destroying private property (Navoo Expositor printing press).

Quite a bit different, eh?

Show me how the church is different than any other cult… Show me the plates.

So the logic employed with this statement suggests that if I could "show you" the golden plates then Mormonism would not qualify as a cult?

What an odd view!

Not really. If you showed me the plates, then I would know the Book of Mormon is true.

While the history has been whitewashed by the leadership,

Examples please.

Polygamy of Joseph Smith with young girls, blacks denied the priesthood (and, of course, the racism of the Book of Mormon itself), the mountain meadows massacre, the kinderhook plates

the theology is way out of the mainstream.

Thank God!

Or Joseph Smith, whose megalomaniacal complex made him utter things like this:

I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet . . . " (History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 408-409).

We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity, I will refute that idea, and will take away and do away the veil, so that you may see....and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 3).

"God made Aaron to be the mouth piece for the children of Israel, and he will make me be God to you in his stead and if you don’t like it, you must lump it."
-Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 363

Hey, believe what you want, but it is a cult.

Yes, you’ve said that before. And you’ve certainly proven your point.

Indeed.

This is really soo much fun. Sincere thanks, Ozemc, for coming back.

You know, we could go back and forth on this all day. There is no consensus.

Again, well done in providing a source that refutes your claim—I have no doubt that this example was also intentional on your behalf.

Indeed, even reading your Internet sources, you should be able to discover the truth regarding the scholarly view. Note the comment in the introductory paragraph from your on-line source:

“Outside of the more conservative seminaries and churches, it is commonly held that Moses did not write these books, that they are a compilation of works by numerous writers over an extended period of time."

Now what do you suppose the author means by the phrase “commonly held”?

Yes, the most conservative seminaries and churches cling to your outdated view that Moses wrote Deuteronomy, but this was not your claim, was it?! The truth is that biblical scholars do not.

Contrary to your suggestion, this is the commonly held consensus.

But check it out for yourself; perhaps you should forget your Internet sources for a moment and actually sit in a Hebrew Bible course taught in any university in the country.

In so doing, you will quickly discover that “despite…the text’s own self presentation, Deuteronomy is likely not Mosaic in origin. More probably, the core of the book was written sometime during the 7th century BCE by educated scribes associated with Jerusalem’s court” Bernard M. Levinson in The Jewish Study Bible (Oxford University Press, 2004): 357.

Why do you insist on embarrassing yourself? Do a bit of research so that you can come to grips with the fact that you, my friend, are clearly wrong.

Quite a bit different, eh?

Nope, your list illustrates the same point. Let’s just apply your list to the cult of 1st century Christianity:

1. Throws mainstream tradition out the window for completely new, radical views such as "God can become a man"… So far out of the "main stream" as to be out of the river.

2. Led by one who calls himself a "prophet" of God, who receives new and continuing revelation, that can change past revelations (God changed his mind?).

“And the multitude said, This is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee” (Matt 21:11)

“And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honor save in his own country, and in his own house” (Matt 13:57)

“Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time… But I say unto you” (Matt 5:27-28)

3. Requires a complete life change, including an apparently endless "mission" in which the converts must give up everything they own. Including giving up all finances, etc.

“Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.” (Mark 10:21)

4. Details new "revelations" from God in which He has changed His mind about previous "revelations" and denying Gentiles church membership.

“These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not” (Matt 10:5)

5. Founded by a known convict who died as a result of causing civil disturbances.

Nope, your list works just fine. Clearly 1st century Christianity, like Mormonism, was truly a cult. Nicely done.

Polygamy of Joseph Smith with young girls, blacks denied the priesthood (and, of course, the racism of the Book of Mormon itself), the mountain meadows massacre, the kinderhook plates.

No, no, no. You’re suppose to provide evidence to support your claim that the Church “white washes” its history. Obviously this list fall short.

Or Joseph Smith, whose megalomaniacal complex made him utter things like this:

But of course if Joseph’s religious claims are correct, then he deserves his “megalomaniacal complex.” I happen to believe that they were.

Not really. If you showed me the plates, then I would know the Book of Mormon is true.

You just acknowledged that if I could show you the plates that Mormonism would not be a cult. I must admit that once again, the logic you employ to provide definitions of "cult" vs. "non-cult" is simply ridiculous. Then again, first century Christianity could not supply the physical body of Jesus, nor can modern Jews provide a physical Arc of the Covenant today, so I suppose the lack of physical plates in Mormonism makes it just like every cult I can think of.

But I see where you're going with this line of reasoning (even if you do not). A cult is any religion that you believe is false. If it is true--and you claim that you would know Mormonism was true if we had physical plates--then Mormonism would not in your view qualify as a cult.

Just curious, why in the world should the definition of Mormonism as cult depend upon what you do or do not believe?

Talk about a "megalomaniacal complex." Who do you think you are!!!

Indeed.

By all means, please keep going. I really have enjoyed this.